Ched Evans: Oldham Athletic sponsors told deal is close (deal off)

[Andy74]

I think it's poor people discussing whether this girl said yes or no, she said NO and Evans was convicted in a court of law of rape and until any appeal is completed, it's what he is. He's not been released and totally free but is released under license, any wrong doing and he serves the rest of his sentence.

Legally there's nothing to stop Oldham signing Evans but this is more a case for morality, is it right that a footballer who is in the media spotlight just saunters back into his profession as if nothing had happened, in my opinion no.

If Evans was in another career dealing with children or women, a teacher for instance then he wouldn't be allowed back and would have to be re trained, so why at the age of 26 can he not be re trained in another profession?

Those restrictions are in place to esnure the safety of people who may come into contact with people conviceted of certain crimes. They are a bit generalised anyway as someone who was convicted of this type of rape offence probably isn't a threat in the same way as someone who has attacked people in the street or in schools. That's another debate.

I just disagree with this suggestion that football, being well paid and in the limelight should be a special case. It's what the guy does as a living, he seems to be not bad at it, and that's what he has a right to go back and do if an employer is happy to employ him.

What our young players get up to at the weeknds or on holidays, who knows, how far do you take the moral character of football players into account? I just want to see players playing football, i'm not too bothered about who they are as people.

[Pete]

In your opinion. You're repeating yourself.

Aren't we all?

[Andy74]

In your opinion. You're repeating yourself.

In the opinion of the law actually.

Your points are repeated as well - that tends to what happen in an ongoing discussion. And can you give up this personal thing with each of my posts on any subject please? Thanks.

[Iceman1875]

SSN deal off


At Easter Road we play...

[J-C]

Those restrictions are in place to esnure the safety of people who may come into contact with people conviceted of certain crimes. They are a bit generalised anyway as someone who was convicted of this type of rape offence probably isn't a threat in the same way as someone who has attacked people in the street or in schools. That's another debate.

I just disagree with this suggestion that football, being well paid and in the limelight should be a special case. It's what the guy does as a living, he seems to be not bad at it, and that's what he has a right to go back and do if an employer is happy to employ him.

What our young players get up to at the weeknds or on holidays, who knows, how far do you take the moral character of football players into account? I just want to see players playing football, i'm not too bothered about who they are as people.


And that's whay I said it's a morality case as legally there's nothing to stop him going back to being a footballer.

Saying he isn't a threat may be a bit off, will he take advantage again if he's in the company of another drunken young lady, can he be trusted to not force himself on her, he's a predator who took advantage and until we know about his appeal, he's on a register for sex offenders.

[Andy74]

And that's whay I said it's a morality case as legally there's nothing to stop him going back to being a footballer.

Saying he isn't a threat may be a bit off, will he take advantage again if he's in the company of another drunken young lady, can he be trusted to not force himself on her, he's a predator who took advantage and until we know about his appeal, he's on a register for sex offenders.

Agree that's a grey area in terms of the register, wht type of threat you may be and the jobs you can do.

Anyhow, as you say, nothing stopping him playing football and I don't think anyone is at threat if he is allowed to do so.

[MrRobot]

I think it's poor people discussing whether this girl said yes or no, she said NO and Evans was convicted in a court of law of rape and until any appeal is completed, it's what he is. He's not been released and totally free but is released under license, any wrong doing and he serves the rest of his sentence.

Legally there's nothing to stop Oldham signing Evans but this is more a case for morality, is it right that a footballer who is in the media spotlight just saunters back into his profession as if nothing had happened, in my opinion no.

If Evans was in another career dealing with children or women, a teacher for instance then he wouldn't be allowed back and would have to be re trained, so why at the age of 26 can he not be re trained in another profession?

TBH, The part about her saying No I dont believe is true. She doesn't remember so doesn't know if she consented. There is no proof at all she said no. There is no proof either that she said yes. That's why it's a horrible case.

That said, if my mate had sex with a girl, last thing I would do is put my mouth anywhere near that. Not a chance. Pretty rank.

[Sergey]

The BBC now reporting that the deal is OFF.

[Hibbyradge]

She doesn't remember so doesn't know if she consented. There is no proof at all she said no. There is no proof either that she said yes.

When a lot of alcohol or drugs are concerned, hearing the word" yes" doesn't necessarily mean there's been valid consent. Legally or morally.

I remember a pal of mine was reeking at a party we were at in London years ago. We were trying to get him up so he could leave, but he was incoherent to say the least.

Do you want to go home, Rob? "Yes".

Shall we get you a taxi? "Yes".

What's your address, Rob? "Yes".

Where's your coat, Rob? "Yes".

Eventually we started taking the pish with all sorts of questions like, "Can we cut your baws off, Rob"? "Yes". Can we cut your head off? "Yes". Much childish hilarity ensued.

I'm sure you get the point. The lassie may not have even known who she was talking to.

PS we didn't amputate anything!

[Geo_1875]

I hope the 69,000 who signed the petition against Oldham signing Evans will show their approval of the boards decision at their next home match.

[Hibbyradge]

TBH, The part about her saying No I dont believe is true. She doesn't remember so doesn't know if she consented. There is no proof at all she said no. There is no proof either that she said yes. That's why it's a horrible case.

That said, if my mate had sex with a girl, last thing I would do is put my mouth anywhere near that. Not a chance. Pretty rank.

The other thing I don't understand is how, if there were 2 men in the room and at least one other mate filming what was happening from the window, how they weren't able to corroborate her consent.

And why did he come in to the hotel by the front door and leave by the fire escape? :confused:

#allverycomplex

[cabbageandribs1875]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30727729


Oldham Athletic have decided against signing convicted rapist Ched Evans following threats to the club's "staff and their families".
A board member told BBC sports editor Dan Roan the decision was also taken because of "enormous pressure from sponsors".

[Hibbyradge]

I hope the 69,000 who signed the petition against Oldham signing Evans will show their approval of the boards decision at their next home match.

What a crass remark.

[Gus]

Oldham have said because of threats to their staff is one of the reasons..........

I for one feel he should have kept out of the limelight until his appeal has been heard.

Boundary Park should either this weekend be: empty as there fans are disgusted that they entertained the thought of signing him or 2, bouncing because they have a sell out.

[Lago]

I would agree that Evans is in all likelyhood a poor excuse for a human being. He certainly took advantage of very drunk young woman. However I also don't think trial by twitter, face book or media is acceptable, is this guy to be denied the opportunity to work again or only work in employmet approved of by the twitter mob.

[Andy74]

What a crass remark.

I think the point being made was that 69,000 people were so concered about the morals of a potential player that those people must surely be very interested in the club and its well being and will be providing their support by the generally accepted means of going to see them?

[Hibbyradge]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30727729


Oldham Athletic have decided against signing convicted rapist Ched Evans following threats to the club's "staff and their families".
A board member told BBC sports editor Dan Roan the decision was also taken because of "enormous pressure from sponsors".

I wonder which of those two reasons was most influential. :hmmm:

Oldham's position remains clear, however. Convicted rapist? On the sex offenders' register? No problem. There's always a place for you in Greater Manchester.

[green day]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30727729


Oldham Athletic have decided against signing convicted rapist Ched Evans following threats to the club's "staff and their families".
A board member told BBC sports editor Dan Roan the decision was also taken because of "enormous pressure from sponsors".

The board are clearly not too bright. It didn't take a genius to see those outcomes.

This guy is now like the jambo caught with his tadger out on Facebook - effectively unemployable.

And to be honest, if this forces clubs to up their education of young players by demonstrating how this guys career is down the pan - then some good MIGHT come out of this mess.

[Hibbyradge]

I think the point being made was that 69,000 people were so concered about the morals of a potential player that those people must surely be very interested in the club and its well being and will be providing their support by the generally accepted means of going to see them?

Oh, I understand the point. That point would be mistaken.

Did you read the petition? It doesn't purport to be from a football fan, never mind an Oldham fan.

Ched Evans is a convicted rapist. He does not deserve to return to a high profile and highly visible role in football whilst he still refuses to acknowledge his guilt, apologise to his victim and attempt to make clear his views to the fans who look up to him that what he did was wrong and they should not traumatise her or other rape victims.

Currently Oldham is said to be considering signing him. This is a damaging message about rape and sexual consent to be giving to your fans. Please think again.

We do believe he has the right to work. We believe that it does not have to be in a role where he influences views about sexual violence, and his presence on your pitch will do this.

[jacomo]

The fact that you keep missing is that the jury had very little in the way of incriminating evidence to consider. None of us were there to see the Birmingham six convicted yet using your logic those who thought something was wrong with the verdict would have been peddling ill founded speculation.

There is enough information in the public domain to suggest this is a strange set of verdicts and a miscarriage of justice.

Like I said before, too many grey areas to look at this in terms of either black or white.

In the Birmingham Six case, lawyers who were not connected to the accused argued that the conviction was unsafe.

There has been nothing like that in this case.

[jacomo]

In the opinion of the law actually.

Your points are repeated as well - that tends to what happen in an ongoing discussion. And can you give up this personal thing with each of my posts on any subject please? Thanks.

By saying 'he is free to work' you were repeating your opinion that he should now be free to resume his career as a footballer were you not?

[Gerard]

If this man can not play football then where should he be allowed to work, or should he not be allowed to work again until he has accepted that he was found guilty? I would like to have seen the court judgement and then that would give a chance to decide on the nature of his trial. If he is allowed to appeal his conviction and sentence and is successful in his appeal ,should he then be allowed to play professional football?

[jacomo]

Aren't we all?

In your case, asserting that the court got it wrong, without having sat through the trial, is dangerous territory.

It seems a lot of the support for Evans is partly based on the attitude that 'from what I've heard, she was probably asking for it anyway'. Trying to justify this attitude by dragging up other miscarriages of justice is very dangerous territory.

[Pete]

It seems a lot of the support for Evans is partly based on the attitude that 'from what I've heard, she was probably asking for it anyway'. Trying to justify this attitude by dragging up other miscarriages of justice is very dangerous territory.

I'm sorry. Could you point me in the direction of any posters who have displayed that attitude and used previous miscarriages of justice to justify it?

[MrRobot]

When a lot of alcohol or drugs are concerned, hearing the word" yes" doesn't necessarily mean there's been valid consent. Legally or morally.

I remember a pal of mine was reeking at a party we were at in London years ago. We were trying to get him up so he could leave, but he was incoherent to say the least.

Do you want to go home, Rob? "Yes".

Shall we get you a taxi? "Yes".

What's your address, Rob? "Yes".

Where's your coat, Rob? "Yes".

Eventually we started taking the pish with all sorts of questions like, "Can we cut your baws off, Rob"? "Yes". Can we cut your head off? "Yes". Much childish hilarity ensued.

I'm sure you get the point. The lassie may not have even known who she was talking to.

PS we didn't amputate anything!


That's also a very valid point actually, never actually looked at it that way. I know myself I've been in a state where people have asked me things and got the most ridiculous answers you can think of that didnt even come close to answering their question, nevermind even have anything to do with it.

The fire escape exit does make it look all the more sneaky and IMO may have been one of the biggest factors in his verdict.

At the same time, you wonder why he admitted having sex with her in the first place when he probably could have said no and she wouldnt have known any different if she genuinely didnt remember anything. Makes you think he didn't have anything to hide apart from being a bit of a minging, desperate dude.

[Lago]

I'm sorry. Could you point me in the direction of any posters who have displayed that attitude and used previous miscarriages of justice to justify it?
With you I have only seen posts that have argued about the fairness of preventing someone obtaining gainful employment.
However it would seem that the ultimate argument winner has now been deployed I. E if you don't do what we want tell your staff, your staff's family and anyone associated with your club to watch their back.

[Ricky Bobby]

The board are clearly not too bright. It didn't take a genius to see those outcomes.

This guy is now like the jambo caught with his tadger out on Facebook - effectively unemployable.

And to be honest, if this forces clubs to up their education of young players by demonstrating how this guys career is down the pan - then some good MIGHT come out of this mess.

Agree 100%

[Onceinawhile]

Deal is off.

Oldham staff member told a relative would get raped if it happened.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30727729

[Speedy]

When a lot of alcohol or drugs are concerned, hearing the word" yes" doesn't necessarily mean there's been valid consent. Legally or morally.
I remember a pal of mine was reeking at a party we were at in London years ago. We were trying to get him up so he could leave, but he was incoherent to say the least.

Do you want to go home, Rob? "Yes".

Shall we get you a taxi? "Yes".

What's your address, Rob? "Yes".

Where's your coat, Rob? "Yes".

Eventually we started taking the pish with all sorts of questions like, "Can we cut your baws off, Rob"? "Yes". Can we cut your head off? "Yes". Much childish hilarity ensued.

I'm sure you get the point. The lassie may not have even known who she was talking to.

PS we didn't amputate anything!

True. But that doesn't mean she said no and, without defending his actions, I do think an explicit no is significantly worse.

Edit: I suppose the point is with this is that you can only deal in facts. Many people are taking facts and interpretting what may or may not have happened.

[Ricky Bobby]

If this man can not play football then where should he be allowed to work, or should he not be allowed to work again until he has accepted that he was found guilty? I would like to have seen the court judgement and then that would give a chance to decide on the nature of his trial. If he is allowed to appeal his conviction and sentence and is successful in his appeal ,should he then be allowed to play professional football?

I dont have a problem with him gaining employment in or out of football. He should however acknowledge that he has behaved poorly and apologise for that.
However being allowed to play professional football again and actually finding someone willing to take the chance on employing him are two different things.
Just as long as its not with us.

[portyhibernian]

Haven't read all 10 pages of this thread so sorry if this has been posted, but I think this is article is quite interesting.

https://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2015/01/07/ched-evans-not-the-account-youre-being-given-by-the-mainstream-media/

[Andy74]

I dont have a problem with him gaining employment in or out of football. He should however acknowledge that he has behaved poorly and apologise for that.
However being allowed to play professional football again and actually finding someone willing to take the chance on employing him are two different things.
Just as long as its not with us.

I believe he ackowleged his behavious was poor and he was unfathful towards his girfriend. He accepted that he had no given right to play football and has suggested he has learned a lesson and would try to be a positive influence in future.

He doesn't believe what he has done consititutes rape and despite being convicted, if that is what he believes then he is not going to apologise for it is he?

An awful lot of pulling in clubs and pubs might be very iffy on the type of consent issues we are talking about so I have some sympathy with this type of allegation against say someone being attacked and raped in the street. So, i'm not sure just a simple apology here is possible if that is what he feels is the case.

Anyhow, I get back to the issue that he has been convicted so none of this matters. He is entitled to work and I am still uncomfortable with a campaign that is exerting pressure which really seeks to extend the boundaries of the law. Most of these people have no connection to the clubs he is looking to play for an do so their interest is just to try and interfere with the guys life beyond that which the court has laid down for him.

[Scouse Hibee]

Deal is off.

Oldham staff member told a relative would get raped if it happened.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30727729

What type of cretin thinks a threat to rape in opposition to a rapist being employed is the way to go FFS.

[Lago]

Deal is off.

Oldham staff member told a relative would get raped if it happened.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30727729

What type of cretin thinks a threat to rape in opposition to a rapist being employed is the way to go FFS.

Welcome to vigilante and mob rule.

[Just Alf]

I dont have a problem with him gaining employment in or out of football. He should however acknowledge that he has behaved poorly and apologise for that.
However being allowed to play professional football again and actually finding someone willing to take the chance on employing him are two different things.
Just as long as its not with us.

This 10000 million %


I keep thinking of that advert on TV about drunk driving, the guy looks to have been caught over the limit and wherever he goes there's blue flashing lights on his coupon...... Consequences

[Andy74]

This 10000 million %


I keep thinking of that advert on TV about drunk driving, the guy looks to have been caught over the limit and wherever he goes there's blue flashing lights on his coupon...... Consequences

Consequences are fine, particulalry when you know you are going to be commiting a crime. Not sure that's clear in this case.

The advert though doesn't really extend to mobs being formed on twitter and the like to make your particular case different to others in the same position, which is my objection to this.

We have employers here who were willing to take him on that are being bullied and threatened into not being able to do so.

[--------]

Deal is off.

Oldham staff member told a relative would get raped if it happened.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30727729

What type of cretin thinks a threat to rape in opposition to a rapist being employed is the way to go FFS.




Welcome to vigilante and mob rule.


This has been coming for a while now. Righteous indignation leading to lynch law.

[LaMotta]

I believe he ackowleged his behavious was poor and he was unfathful towards his girfriend. He accepted that he had no given right to play football and has suggested he has learned a lesson and would try to be a positive influence in future.

He doesn't believe what he has done consititutes rape and despite being convicted, if that is what he believes then he is not going to apologise for it is he?

An awful lot of pulling in clubs and pubs might be very iffy on the type of consent issues we are talking about so I have some sympathy with this type of allegation against say someone being attacked and raped in the street. So, i'm not sure just a simple apology here is possible if that is what he feels is the case.

Anyhow, I get back to the issue that he has been convicted so none of this matters. He is entitled to work and I am still uncomfortable with a campaign that is exerting pressure which really seeks to extend the boundaries of the law. Most of these people have no connection to the clubs he is looking to play for an do so their interest is just to try and interfere with the guys life beyond that which the court has laid down for him.

:agree: :agree:

[McIntosh]

In your case, asserting that the court got it wrong, without having sat through the trial, is dangerous territory.

It seems a lot of the support for Evans is partly based on the attitude that 'from what I've heard, she was probably asking for it anyway'. Trying to justify this attitude by dragging up other miscarriages of justice is very dangerous territory. As you have admitted you have not studied law. You are so out of your depth commenting on aspects of the law I would advise you to stick to morality. You are on much safer ground here.

You have clearly heard wrong - as has been consistently stated the reviewed is directly related to misdirection and misrepresentation. It has been repeated frequently enough even for you to read it.

[McIntosh]

Deal is off.

Oldham staff member told a relative would get raped if it happened.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30727729

What type of cretin thinks a threat to rape in opposition to a rapist being employed is the way to go FFS.

The over reactions are borderline hysterical - you could not make them up.

[Just Alf]

Consequences are fine, particulalry when you know you are going to be commiting a crime. Not sure that's clear in this case.

The advert though doesn't really extend to mobs being formed on twitter and the like to make your particular case different to others in the same position, which is my objection to this.

We have employers here who were willing to take him on that are being bullied and threatened into not being able to do so.

I do know where you're coming from, it could easily be argued that he was just taking advantage and both were boozed up, not a criminal but still someone I wouldn't want my daughter near....... What seals it for me I'm afraid that he has his website and "followers" and for whatever reason the lassies life has since been a living hell.... Maybe if he'd tried to defuse that situation somewhat then people would be more open to accepting he was stupid rather than malicious? :dunno:

[McIntosh]

This has been coming for a while now. Righteous indignation leading to lynch law. :top marks

[FranckSuzy]

Maybe, after this all blows over, it is time for footballers to be advised/trained/taught that they are in a special position in society and whether they like it or not, their private life will impact on their public life.

Teachers, doctors, nurses, the military/policeforce/fire brigade, etc, etc all go into a profession well aware of the impact any sort of indiscretion could have on their professional life so why should a very well-paid footballer be any different?

Before anyone says "why should someone who loves playing football (and happens to be extremely good at it) have to modify their lifestyle as they didn't go looking for fame and fortune?"....well, I would counter why should someone who is competent at science/woodwork/putting out fires (and every other skill required to by the workers aforementioned) have to choose a different lifestyle, just because they are attempting to put others before themselves and seek a vocation, if you like?

Let's be honest, being paid the amount footballers currently are, I would assume the thought of losing sponsorship/public persona would be a big deal on it's own, never mind the threat of never signing for a club again. They are paid a hell of a lot of money for a reason and with that comes responsibility, IMHO.

[CropleyWasGod]

What type of cretin thinks a threat to rape in opposition to a rapist being employed is the way to go FFS.

The whole thing is so murky, that I wouldn't necessarily believe that such a threat was made.

[--------]

Welcome to vigilante and mob rule.




This has been coming for a while now. Righteous indignation leading to lynch law.


Maybe I should have said "trial by social media" - but there's no difference that I can see, tbh.

[Hibbyradge]

Welcome to vigilante and mob rule.

The victim's been suffering that since the day of the verdict.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

And why did he come in to the hotel by the front door and leave by the fire escape? :confused:

Is that a euphemism? :whistle:

[JimBHibees]

Is that a euphemism? :whistle:

:faf:

[--------]

The victim's been suffering that since the day of the verdict.

I agree - and a lot of that via social media.

Works all ways, I'd say.

[Geo_1875]

What a crass remark.

Why? Surely they are all Oldham fans showing an interest in their clubs signing policy.

[jacomo]

I'm sorry. Could you point me in the direction of any posters who have displayed that attitude and used previous miscarriages of justice to justify it?

Much of this thread has been about this being a miscarriage of justice, a such as the Birmingham Six.

Just go back a few pages.

[jacomo]

As you have admitted you have not studied law. You are so out of your depth commenting on aspects of the law I would advise you to stick to morality. You are on much safer ground here.

You have clearly heard wrong - as has been consistently stated the reviewed is directly related to misdirection and misrepresentation. It has been repeated frequently enough even for you to read it.

I am not commenting on aspects of the law and I am not qualified to do so. I am repeating what I read from the appeal and trust that the jury made the right decision, given the facts presented to them.

Are you a criminal lawyer? Do you have detailed knowledge of this case? If the answer is no to either, you are at risk of looking a little foolish.

[Lago]

This has been coming for a while now. Righteous indignation leading to lynch law.
:top marks

[Hibbyradge]

Why? Surely they are all Oldham fans showing an interest in their clubs signing policy.

Is that the extent of your thinking?

[jacomo]

The whole thing is so murky, that I wouldn't necessarily believe that such a threat was made.

:agree:

GMP have said they have no reports of any such threats being made.

[Andy74]

Is that the extent of your thinking?

It's understandable if you are a supporter concerned about the impact on your team - it's another thing just to be part of a campaign trying to ensure he can't work anywhere isn't it?

[Hibbyradge]

It's understandable if you are a supporter concerned about the impact on your team

Really? You honestly believe that supporters of Oldham Football Club are the only people who might have a legitimate concern about the employment of a rapist in a high profile career? No-one else involved in football should be allowed an opinion?

No-one else in society? Wow.


it's another thing just to be part of a campaign trying to ensure he can't work anywhere isn't it?

You clearly still haven't read the petition if that's what you think it's about.

[Andy74]

Really? You honestly believe that supporters of Oldham Football Club are the only people who might have a legitimate concern about the employment of a rapist in a high profile career? No-one else involved in football should be allowed an opinion?

No-one else in society? Wow.



You clearly still haven't read the petition if that's what you think it's about.

A legitimate concern? No.

I don't really believe the link they are making about the profile and the mesaging.


A lot of people just don't like football players and this comes across as a campaign to take the opportunity to make an example of one.

It's way out of proportion to the details of the case.

[Just Alf]

It's understandable if you are a supporter concerned about the impact on your team - it's another thing just to be part of a campaign trying to ensure he can't work anywhere isn't it?

Wouldn't argue with that.... Don't want him near us end of..... If he did get signed I'd need to have a long think about where I'd be spending my money in future .... I'll say right now , It definitely wouldn't be with whoever signed him.

[Hibbyradge]

A legitimate concern? No.

I don't know what you mean.

However, the type of people employed in our national game is a legitimate concern for anyone with an interest in football.

[Hibbyradge]

A legitimate concern? No.

I don't really believe the link they are making about the profile and the mesaging.



I most certainly do.

[Andy74]

I don't know what you mean.

However, the type of people employed in our national game is a legitimate concern for anyone with an interest in football.

I'm not sure most of these people have any interest in football.

[Hibbyradge]

Wouldn't argue with that.... Don't want him near us end of..... If he did get signed I'd need to have a long think about where I'd be spending my money in future .... I'll say right now , It definitely wouldn't be with whoever signed him.

There is no campaign to to stop him working anywhere.

[Andy74]

There is no campaign to to stop him working anywhere.

They want to dictate what job he can do. Same thing. It's a step beyond what the law dicatates.

[Hibbyradge]

I'm not sure most of these people have any interest in football.

You're sure? What gives you such assurance?

However, at least you've started to realise that one doesn't have to be an Oldham fan to be concerned about this.

[Andy74]

You're sure? What gives you such assurance?

However, at least you've started to realise that one doesn't have to be an Oldham fan to be concerned about this.

It's rather my point - they shouldn't be.

[Hibbyradge]

They want to dictate what job he can do. Same thing. It's a step beyond what the law dicatates.

I don't want rapists or child sex offenders anywhere our national game.

Or teaching. Or politics or religion or social work.

Huge steps beyond what the law says.

[Hibbyradge]

It's rather my point - they shouldn't be.

They shouldn't be what? Concerned? Really?

[Bristolhibby]

Maybe, after this all blows over, it is time for footballers to be advised/trained/taught that they are in a special position in society and whether they like it or not, their private life will impact on their public life.

Teachers, doctors, nurses, the military/policeforce/fire brigade, etc, etc all go into a profession well aware of the impact any sort of indiscretion could have on their professional life so why should a very well-paid footballer be any different?

Before anyone says "why should someone who loves playing football (and happens to be extremely good at it) have to modify their lifestyle as they didn't go looking for fame and fortune?"....well, I would counter why should someone who is competent at science/woodwork/putting out fires (and every other skill required to by the workers aforementioned) have to choose a different lifestyle, just because they are attempting to put others before themselves and seek a vocation, if you like?

Let's be honest, being paid the amount footballers currently are, I would assume the thought of losing sponsorship/public persona would be a big deal on it's own, never mind the threat of never signing for a club again. They are paid a hell of a lot of money for a reason and with that comes responsibility, IMHO.

Good post.

J

[Pete]

I don't want rapists or child sex offenders anywhere our national game.

Why?

Will this effect you personally?

[Pete]

Much of this thread has been about this being a miscarriage of justice, a such as the Birmingham Six.

Just go back a few pages.

Can you point out who basically thinks she was "asking for it" and backs it up using examples like the Birmingham six?

That's what you said.

[Hibbyradge]

Why?

Will this effect you personally?

Did you take any interest in the Jimmy Saville case at all?

[McIntosh]

I am not commenting on aspects of the law and I am not qualified to do so. I am repeating what I read from the appeal and trust that the jury made the right decision, given the facts presented to them.

Are you a criminal lawyer? Do you have detailed knowledge of this case? If the answer is no to either, you are at risk of looking a little foolish.

As you ask my under-graduate degree is in Law and I had the real 'privilege' of working for Human Rights Watch. Secondly, I have very detailed knowledge on the review of the case and I would hope it shows.

[jacomo]

As you ask my under-graduate degree is Law and I had the real 'privilege' of working for Human Rights Watch. Secondly, I have very detailed knowledge on the review of the case and I would hope it shows.

Ok. So the answer to the first question is no, then.

[jacomo]

Can you point out who basically thinks she was "asking for it" and backs it up using examples like the Birmingham six?

That's what you said.

I know what I said and it's not quite what you post here.

[jacomo]

Why?

Will this effect you personally?

Are you saying that people should only be allowed to express an opinion on something that affects them personally?

[McIntosh]

Ok. So the answer to the first question is no, then. What do you mean - you never asked me if I have my practice certificate. You do embarrass yourself at times.

[McIntosh]

I know what I said and it's not quite what you post here. Statement and evidence. We know what you said and there was no evidence for it. Schoolboy error here.

[jacomo]

What do you mean - you never asked me if I have my practice certificate. You do embarrass yourself at times.

I embarrass myself?

I asked you if you were a criminal lawyer. Either you didn't understand the question or you are trying to pass yourself off as something you are not.

[LaMotta]

Haven't seen it posted yet.....

Official Statement from Ched Evans this afternoon:

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11095/9636596/ched-evans-and-pfa-issue-statement

[Hibbyradge]

You do embarrass yourself at times.


Schoolboy error here.

Why do you feel the need to belittle and/or insult people with a different opinion to yourself?

Did your undergraduate law degree rob you of the ability to debate civilly?

[Judas Iscariot]

Haven't read all 10 pages of this thread so sorry if this has been posted, but I think this is article is quite interesting.

https://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2015/01/07/ched-evans-not-the-account-youre-being-given-by-the-mainstream-media/

Read that earlier, worth a look :agree:

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

This thread has turned into a piss poor episode of Law & Order UK, all we need is Bradley Walsh to turn up and the comparison will be complete. :greengrin

[McIntosh]

Why do you feel the need to belittle and/or insult people with a different opinion to yourself?

Did your undergraduate law degree rob you of the ability to debate civilly? The pot calling the kettle black

[Danderhall Hibs]

It's amazing the amount of folk that are willing to post opinions on stuff they know absolutely nothing about, isn't it?

[McIntosh]

I embarrass myself?

I asked you if you were a criminal lawyer. Either you didn't understand the question or you are trying to pass yourself off as something you are not.

I answered it and was even more concise because I don't practice anymore. However, yet again you ignore the rest of the statements made by many posters because for you they are in convenient truths.

[jacomo]

The pot calling the kettle black

I hope your comebacks in the court room are better than that.

[jacomo]

I answered it and was even more concise because I don't practice anymore. However, yet again you ignore the rest of the statements made by many posters because for you they are in convenient truths.

What are you talking about?

Your answers don't stack up.

I asked you if you were a criminal lawyer. No lawyer I know, when asked about their career, would start with 'I did an undergraduate degree in law.' Millions of people have an undergraduate law degree. Some of them go on to become lawyers. Some of them practise criminal law.

I think you are a fantasist or a bull****ter. I don't really care which it is, because either way you've got zero credibility.

[McIntosh]

I hope your comebacks in the court room are better than that.

I was always criticised for being too aggressive - I used to save my best for when I was cross-examining the police. You my friend, are just wrong - you are not my moral enemy.

[Bristolhibby]

Why?

Will this effect you personally?

Ridiculous post

[jacomo]

This thread has turned into a piss poor episode of Law & Order UK, all we need is Bradley Walsh to turn up and the comparison will be complete. :greengrin

Sorry! I've been arguing with a 'lawyer'.

[matty_f]

It's amazing the amount of folk that are willing to post opinions on stuff they know absolutely nothing about, isn't it?

:top marks

[McIntosh]

What are you talking about?

Your answers don't stack up.

I asked you if you were a criminal lawyer. No lawyer I know, when asked about their career, would start with 'I did an undergraduate degree in law.' Millions of people have an undergraduate law degree. Some of them go on to become lawyers. Some of them practise criminal law.

I think you are a fantasist or a bull****ter. I don't really care which it is, because either way you've got zero credibility.

I am now a University lecturer no fantasy there - people who know me know my past and what I do now. You my friend are just a little bit out of your depth and it shows.

[Pete]

Ridiculous post

What's ridiculous about it?

If you've nothing to add or cant be bothered elaborating then do me a favour and refrain from quoting me please.

[Pete]

Did you take any interest in the Jimmy Saville case at all?

A passing one.

Why do you ask?

[Pete]

Are you saying that people should only be allowed to express an opinion on something that affects them personally?

No. People are free to express opinions on whatever they want.

People are also entitled to challenge those opinions and tell others that they are directly influencing something that has nothing to do with them.

[McIntosh]

No. People are free to express opinions on whatever they want.

People are also entitled to challenge those opinions and tell others that they are directly influencing something that has nothing to do with them. :top marks

[Pete]

It's amazing the amount of folk that are willing to post opinions on stuff they know absolutely nothing about, isn't it?

To be honest, I don't think there are many people posting here who know "absolutely nothing" about this case.

[Hibbyradge]

The pot calling the kettle black

Thank you for proving the point. :aok:

[jacomo]

I am now a University lecturer no fantasy there - people who know me know my past and what I do now. You my friend are just a little bit out of your depth and it shows.

Right. Well done, I suppose, for giving an answer at last. A simple 'no' would have done.

University standards are really slipping, it seems.

[McIntosh]

Thank you for proving the point. :aok: If the cap fits my friend wear it.....:aok:

[MSK]

Guys ..could you please cut out the petty insults & bitching....ta..:aok:

[McIntosh]

Right. Well done, I suppose, for giving an answer at last. A simple 'no' would have done.

University standards are really slipping, it seems.

No pass there for you but if you are really interested in my career - Law then practice in England. Human Rights Watch actively involved in the Stephen Lawrence Campaign, dealing with the LGBT in Jamaica (not an easy shift - death threats). Finally, working with Peter Tatchell on human rights abuses internationally. A lot there to be proud of which I am. I can say I have not been an arm chair activists I have really put my self on the line.

As for standards I let the QAA decide that they are qualified to judge but as you are so vocal, what do you do for living?

[Lago]

No. People are free to express opinions on whatever they want.

People are also entitled to challenge those opinions and tell others that they are directly influencing something that has nothing to do with them.
Spot on absolutely spot on!!!

[silverhibee]

None of which really matters though, he was sentenced, he is now free to work.

Would you employ him.

[weonlywon6-2]

Evans future employment is away from football,he should have worked that out by now

[Lago]

Evans future employment is away from football,he should have worked that out by now
Maybes ayes, maybes naw.

[blackpoolhibs]

Would you employ him.

Someone will, unless he should be furthered punished and left to live off the state on benefits for the rest of his life? Reading bits and pieces i have seen on the internet, i personally think there is a large amount of folk more worried about how much he may earn, rather than what he actually did.

[jacomo]

No pass there for you but if you are really interested in my career - Law then practice in England. Human Rights Watch actively involved in the Stephen Lawrence Campaign, dealing with the LGBT in Jamaica (not an easy shift - death threats). Finally, working with Peter Tatchell on human rights abuses internationally. A lot there to be proud of which I am. I can say I have not been an arm chair activists I have really put my self on the line.

As for standards I let the QAA decide that they are qualified to judge but as you are so vocal, what do you do for living?

A nice story. I'll give it as much credence as your earlier evasiveness and petty insults deserve.

What I do for a living is my own business. Given that I've never tried to pass myself off as an expert in an area I've not worked in, though, I don't think it's an issue?

Anyhow, I've heard the warning bell so no more on this from me.

[jacomo]

Someone will, unless he should be furthered punished and left to live off the state on benefits for the rest of his life? Reading bits and pieces i have seen on the internet, i personally think there is a large amount of folk more worried about how much he may earn, rather than what he actually did.

Why would he have to live on benefits? Is he incapable of performing any other job?

[pontius pilate]

This whole thing is becoming a farce. Why did he not come out with this statement after his release from prison? Why would any club want to employ a convicted sex offender who is still placed on the S.O register indefinitely? He may have served his prison sentence but he is still on license and has to attend meetings with his parole officer. In any other profession where the accused has been in a position of trust and who has committed a heinous crime like this would have been struck off why he is still allowed to tout himself to other clubs is ridiculous and shame on the FA for allowing it and indeed the PFA. When all is said is done he took advantage of a girl who was in no fit state to either comply or indeed refuse what was happening to her on the night in question. She consented to sexual activity to his friend but not to him. The real tragedy is how this girl has been targeted by keyboard warriors.

[Danderhall Hibs]

To be honest, I don't think there are many people posting here who know "absolutely nothing" about this case.

Seems like it to me. Some of the strongest anti Evans posts have had comments about how he got her drunk. Just blatant ignorance of what's been reported.

[Andy74]

Would you employ him.

No but I don't think he is qualified to work in my team.

[blackpoolhibs]

Why would he have to live on benefits? Is he incapable of performing any other job?

I'm just presuming that people will get all upset if he becomes a plumber or a dustbin man, would you want him emptying your bins, or fixing your central heating?


Perhaps he could get a job as an internet salesman, where nobody would know who they were buying something from? Yet imagine you found out, would you be able to use the item once you knew who it had come from? And would you then make sure everybody knew what he was doing now and wreck his business so it failed?

Because thats where we are going with this, and thats why i made the comment about him living on benefits.

[McIntosh]

A nice story. I'll give it as much credence as your earlier evasiveness and petty insults deserve.

What I do for a living is my own business. Given that I've never tried to pass myself off as an expert in an area I've not worked in, though, I don't think it's an issue?

Anyhow, I've heard the warning bell so no more on this from me.

Your problem and it possibly due to the anonymity of the internet is that it breeds contempt and disrespect. I am possibly as guilty as the next person of this poor behaviour. Yes, you have the right to privacy but it is a pity you could not extend that right to me. It is good that you heard the warning bell but even in this post you could not help yourself in having another dig. If any good has come from this exchange it is that it has silenced you.

[heid the baw]

The facts as I see them:
He has been convicted of rape.
He has served the custodial part of his sentence and is now out on licence.
He has lodged an appeal against his conviction.

I fully defend his right to be rehabilitated but the reality is that with any criminal conviction, there are consequences. There is a world of difference between rights and consequences, and given the nature of his offence, his just going to live with he fact that unless his appeal is successful, the baw is on the slates as far as his football career is concerned.

Mike Leander, the guy who co-wrote all of Gary Glitter's hits, the other members of Lostprophets, these people will see diddly squat in PRS royalties from now on in. Probably out of pocket by huge sums every year because these records are never played anywhere these days. Consequences are what they are and there is no point in trying to apply our own individual interpretation of fairness to it.

[Gerard]

Why would he have to live on benefits? Is he incapable of performing any other job?

This is a very difficult situation to consider. The fact is that he was convicted in a court of law, his crime being rape. He was relased on licence after serving 2 and a half years of a 5 year sentence. When reading his website it states that:"On 15 July 2014 Ched’s new legal team David Emanuel of Garden Court Chambers London and Shaun Draycott submitted an application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission which is the first step to a second appeal. They are confident in their submission".
In another part of the wbesite it also stated that he was not allowed to appeal the decision of this court.
I have read his website and in due course will read the courts decision.
If he should be given leave to appeal his conviction and his appeal is upheld then he should be able to find a professional club to employ him.
If he is refused leave to appeal or after appeal the decision of the first court is upheld then we are in the same position that we are now: a person convicted of rape and virtually unemployable as a proessional football player.
Ched Evans is a young man and he needs to find suitable employment as the state should not have to pay benefits for a man who is capable of working. The problem could be that he may not be suited to other employment than football.
There is another issue regarding the way that the person whom he has been convicted of raping has had to face threats agaisnt her. Threats against this person are not acceptable and if there is a good chance of a conviction in a criminal court then these people need to face court proceeedings.
I would suggest that people should read his website and the record of the court case and then you will be able to undertstand the facts behind this case.
Our society needs to punish people who are guilty of rape. These people need to be punished and after they have served their time they need rehabilitation so they can in some way be useful members of society.
One other point is that if the board members of Oldham and their families have received death threats that also needs to be investigated and if enough evidence exists court proceeding to be taken against these people.
In this case we see how difficult it is to find a solution that is acceptable to all parties. I suspect that even Solomon the wise King would not find an acceptable outcome in this case.

[Pete]

Seems like it to me. Some of the strongest anti Evans posts have had comments about how he got her drunk. Just blatant ignorance of what's been reported.

I stand corrected. People are still going on about how she have this other guy consent.

I give up.

[Pete]

Guys ..could you please cut out the petty insults & bitching....ta..:aok:

Does this rule extend to the other thread?

[Calum68]

https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans

[Future17]

Gordon Taylor thinks this subject isn't emotive enough, so decides to make a Hillsborough reference. :rolleyes:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30737640

[jacomo]

Your problem and it possibly due to the anonymity of the internet is that it breeds contempt and disrespect. I am possibly as guilty as the next person of this poor behaviour. Yes, you have the right to privacy but it is a pity you could not extend that right to me. It is good that you heard the warning bell but even in this post you could not help yourself in having another dig. If any good has come from this exchange it is that it has silenced you.

I've not been silenced.

I've just stopped engaging with you, because you are a fraud.

[Allant1981]

Such a strange case, the girl cant mind of doing anything with him but the jury were convinced that he raped her, i cant get my head around the fact that the jury wouldnt think there is a chance she said yes to him

[Rasta_Hibs]

Such a strange case, the girl cant mind of doing anything with him but the jury were convinced that he raped her, i cant get my head around the fact that the jury wouldnt think there is a chance she said yes to him

Are you deliberately missing the point that she cant remember, if she cant remember it then consent cant be given?

[heretoday]

Everyone would do well to get worked up about summat else as this story will only resolve in the appeal court. They were discussing it on BBC Qu Time last night and one or two folk were speculating so much that I'd advise Evans to get his lawyers to have a look at the footage.

[Future17]

Are you deliberately missing the point that she cant remember, if she cant remember it then consent cant be given?

Except that's not true is it? Just because someone doesn't remember what happened, does not mean they did not consent.

The misrepresentation of the facts of this case and the relevant legal issues on this thread are baffling. All the information you need to properly understand matters is there for people to read. For so many people to have such strong opinions without bothering to do that seems like evidence that the "mob rule" comment is accurate.

[J-C]

https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans

Very interesting read, a lot of grey areas to be considered and I can understand wholly why he still claims to be innocent.

[Rasta_Hibs]

Except that's not true is it? Just because someone doesn't remember what happened, does not mean they did not consent.

The misrepresentation of the facts of this case and the relevant legal issues on this thread are baffling. All the information you need to properly understand matters is there for people to read. For so many people to have such strong opinions without bothering to do that seems like evidence that the "mob rule" comment is accurate.

Well if someone is so drunk they cant remember having sex and did not remember giving consent but she awoke with the knowledge it has taken place then that surely says she wasn't in a fit state to decide and its been one against her will?

If anything the outage this case has caused from the decent minded people of the UK will teach Ched Evans to respect women more

[Andy74]

Well if someone is so drunk they cant remember having sex and did not remember giving consent but she awoke with the knowledge it has taken place then that surely says she wasn't in a fit state to decide and its been one against her will?

If anything the outage this case has caused from the decent minded people of the UK will teach Ched Evans to respect women more

No, that doesn't make sense at all.

[Danderhall Hibs]

Except that's not true is it? Just because someone doesn't remember what happened, does not mean they did not consent.

The misrepresentation of the facts of this case and the relevant legal issues on this thread are baffling. All the information you need to properly understand matters is there for people to read. For so many people to have such strong opinions without bothering to do that seems like evidence that the "mob rule" comment is accurate.

Completely agree. I've inly read bits and bobs but it opened my eyes to the fact that this is not black and white.

As I said earlier folk have heard the word rape and made so many assumptions about what happened that they now think what they're assumed is the truth.

BTW I'm not saying he didn't do it - just completely lost with it all. I'm sure I read the girl didn't make the complaint and that she can't remember anything. If he'd said nothing at all we wouldn't be having this conversation and the mob would be hounding someone/something else.

Maybe Prince Andrew?

[Rasta_Hibs]

No, that doesn't make sense at all.

Maybe you need to think aboot it more? She was out her dish and didn't know what was going on? That better terms for you? :)

[Andy74]

Maybe you need to think aboot it more? She was out her dish and didn't know what was going on? That better terms for you? :)

I don't need to think about it any more - what you have said in a general sense is ridiculous.

[Cabbage East]

Well if someone is so drunk they cant remember having sex and did not remember giving consent but she awoke with the knowledge it has taken place then that surely says she wasn't in a fit state to decide and its been one against her will?

If anything the outage this case has caused from the decent minded people of the UK will teach Ched Evans to respect women more

That is mental logic there.

[heretoday]

Maybe you need to think aboot it more? She was out her dish and didn't know what was going on? That better terms for you? :)

Right. And can she recall precisely whose knob did the job? That's the prob. :hmmm:

[Rasta_Hibs]

I don't need to think about it any more - what you have said in a general sense is ridiculous.

What that the lassie was too out her mind to give consent?

The ridiculous thing is we are talking about letting convicted rapist another chance at football.

Suppose we see it differently!

[GordonHFC]

Well if someone is so drunk they cant remember having sex and did not remember giving consent but she awoke with the knowledge it has taken place then that surely says she wasn't in a fit state to decide and its been one against her will?

If anything the outage this case has caused from the decent minded people of the UK will teach Ched Evans to respect women more

Ok. Taking your own logic above into account, why was one of the men found guilty and the other not?

[Andy74]

Right. And can she recall precisely whose knob did the job? That's the prob. :hmmm:

In the example given she could also have been a rapist herself.

[Andy74]

What that the lassie was too out her mind to give consent?

The ridiculous thing is we are talking about letting convicted rapist another chance at football.

Suppose we see it differently!

No, you are saying that anyone who has been too drunk to recall what has happened has been raped.

[Rasta_Hibs]

That is mental logic there.

Maybe so but its mines!

Ken if we let him sign on at Oldham like some have wanted it sends out the wrong message. The outrage lets all known and posters on here - society is not accepting rapists playing football at a professional level.

[Rasta_Hibs]

No, you are saying that anyone who has been too drunk to recall what has happened has been raped.

No I am not. Im saying she was.

[J-C]

If she was so out of it she has a memory blank, how come no one else from the hotel ha been suspected, the night porter, any other guests.

Both men willingly went to the police and told police what had happened, the porter didn't think anything untowards was going on as he didn't hear struggling etc just 2 people having sex. The defense expert witness says the ammount of alcohol in her body would make her 2.5 x over the driving limit but not enough to make her literally unconscious. I think Evans took advantage of a situaton but reading the post earlier where the facts were given it's a very grey area as to why Evans and not McDonald was found guilty of rape, it had to be either both or none.

[Rasta_Hibs]

Ok. Taking your own logic above into account, why was one of the men found guilty and the other not?

As she wasn't raped by him?

[jacomo]

Well if someone is so drunk they cant remember having sex and did not remember giving consent but she awoke with the knowledge it has taken place then that surely says she wasn't in a fit state to decide and its been one against her will?

If anything the outage this case has caused from the decent minded people of the UK will teach Ched Evans to respect women more

This argument is covered in the case summary (see link above). I am not a criminal lawyer (and neither am I trying to pass myself off as one :wink:) but definitely worth reading that before speculating on here.

[easty]

If she was so out of it she has a memory blank, how come no one else from the hotel ha been suspected, the night porter, any other guests.

Both men willingly went to the police and told police what had happened, the porter didn't think anything untowards was going on as he didn't hear struggling etc just 2 people having sex. The defense expert witness says the ammount of alcohol in her body would make her 2.5 x over the driving limit but not enough to make her literally unconscious. I think Evans took advantage of a situaton but reading the post earlier where the facts were given it's a very grey area as to why Evans and not McDonald was found guilty of rape, it had to be either both of none.

It didn't, and that was made explicitly clear at the trial by the judge. He was then found guilty and McDonald was not.

Then 3 appeal judges decided not to grant him an appeal. But what do they know.

[J-C]

As she wasn't raped by him?

But if she can't remember anything since she left the nightclub how does she know if she said yes to either men, this is why it's a very grey area.

[J-C]

It didn't, and that was made explicitly clear at the trial by the judge. He was then found guilty and McDonald was not.

Then 3 appeal judges decided not to grant him an appeal. But what do they know.


This is again why there is doubt because of the grey area of if she had memory loss, who did she agree to have sex with as she cannot remember.

[easty]

This is again why there is doubt because of the grey area of if she had memory loss, who did she agree to have sex with as she cannot remember.

I don't want to state this as fact, as I could be wrong, but wasn't it the case that it was interpreted that she had consented given that she knew she was going back to the hotel with him. She wasn't saying that she was in a bar, then next minute she woke up and had been raped, she bumped into McDonald and agreed to go back to his hotel. Clearly they werent going back to play football manager on his laptop. Ched Evans wasn't there at the time she agreed to go back, nor was she made aware he'd be going to the hotel.

[LaMotta]

No I am not. Im saying she was.

Your bizaare logic shared by the hard of thinking across the outraged, misinformed, hysterical world of social media highlights everything that is wrong with the debate around this whole sorry tale.

[Rasta_Hibs]

Your bizaare logic shared by the hard of thinking across the outraged, misinformed, hysterical world of social media highlights everything that is wrong with the debate around this whole sorry tale.

The world is to soft on rapists an not enough respect given to women! I think Ched has gotten off very lighty!

[CropleyWasGod]

The world is to soft on rapists an not enough respect given to women! I think Ched has gotten off very lighty!

.... and male victims of rape?

[LaMotta]

I don't want to state this as fact, as I could be wrong, but wasn't it the case that it was interpreted that she had consented given that she knew she was going back to the hotel with him. She wasn't saying that she was in a bar, then next minute she woke up and had been raped, she bumped into McDonald and agreed to go back to his hotel. Clearly they werent going back to play football manager on his laptop. Ched Evans wasn't there at the time she agreed to go back, nor was she made aware he'd be going to the hotel.


You are right that is what the Jury interpreted following direction by the judge. However this highlights everything that is confusing about the differing verdicts. Because there is an assumption that because she agreed to go back with McDonald he didn't rape her.

I worked with a girl a while back who met a guy in a pub one night. They hit it off and on their second date had a few drinks , before she willingly went back to his flat to have a few more drinks. Whist there, he had sex with her against her will. She was raped. By the confused logic of the jury in the Evans case, the fact the girl I know willingly went back to this man's flat means she consented to sex.

[Rasta_Hibs]

.... and male victims of rape?

The same applies!

[FranckSuzy]

Right. And can she recall precisely whose knob did the job? That's the prob. :hmmm:

Charming....

[Betty Boop]

.... and male victims of rape?

Can a woman rape a man ? :greengrin Hope no men are offended.

[CropleyWasGod]

Can a woman rape a man ? :greengrin Hope no men are offended.

Yep.:agree:

It's unusual, though, I was meaning male victims of male rape.

[Betty Boop]

Yep.:agree:

It's unusual, though, I was meaning male victims of male rape.

Oh gosh sorry, never even gave that a thought.:doh:

[CropleyWasGod]

Oh gosh sorry, never even gave that a thought.:doh:

Ah, casual sexism is alive and well on Hibs.net. :na na:

[McIntosh]

I've not been silenced.

I've just stopped engaging with you, because you are a fraud. Projection my friend but more fool you. Latest update - it is clear that many are of the opinion that the verdict was unsound. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30742947

[Andy74]

Can a woman rape a man ? :greengrin Hope no men are offended.

If we are talking about being able to wake up with no recollection and that equates to not having given consent then a man could equally claim that he has been raped by a woman I would assume.

In a threesome scenario, if another woman joined in once the drink had been flowing and you weren't that aware until the morning then again I assume that would be rape.

[Betty Boop]

Ah, casual sexism is alive and well on Hibs.net. :na na:

Ah ken :embarrass

[Betty Boop]

If we are talking about being able to wake up with no recollection and that equates to not having given consent then a man could equally claim that he has been raped by a woman I would assume.

In a threesome scenario, if another woman joined in once the drink had been flowing and you weren't that aware until the morning then again I assume that would be rape.

Thanks for that.

[easty]

Projection my friend but more fool you. Latest update - it is clear that many are of the opinion that the verdict was unsound. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30742947

Well if Steve Bruce likes him then...:confused:

[McIntosh]

This argument is covered in the case summary (see link above). I am not a criminal lawyer (and neither am I trying to pass myself off as one :wink:) but definitely worth reading that before speculating on here.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30742947 there is a persuasive counter argument be vocalised and supported. Not everyone is going to be shouted down or defamed.:wink:

[JimBHibees]

If we are talking about being able to wake up with no recollection and that equates to not having given consent then a man could equally claim that he has been raped by a woman I would assume.

In a threesome scenario, if another woman joined in once the drink had been flowing and you weren't that aware until the morning then again I assume that would be rape.

I think there has to be penetration of the person being raped. What you have described would probably be a sexual offence but not rape.

[Rasta_Hibs]

I think there has to be penetration of the person being raped. What you have described would probably be a sexual offence but not rape.

I would not like invited to a few parties from some as if your drunk it seems anything anyone is fair game!

[Andy74]

I think there has to be penetration of the person being raped. What you have described would probably be a sexual offence but not rape.

Interesting, thanks.

Seems a bit outdated if we are talking about lack of capacity to consent as opposed to physically overpowering to force sex. Sex isn't just a thing that is done to a woman (or man), two people take part.

[jacomo]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30742947 there is a persuasive counter argument be vocalised and supported. Not everyone is going to be shouted down or defamed.:wink:

Your erroneous use of legal terms such as 'defamed' and 'right to privacy' is not doing anything for your credibility.

[Hibbyradge]

There are two entirely separate issues here and they really shouldn't be confused.

One is whether there is a place in professional football for convicted rapists.

The second is whether Ched Evans' conviction was correct.

My view is that rapists should not be allowed back into football.

I have no idea about the second. I wasn't at the trial.

All I know is that he was convicted by a jury, he then appealed against the conviction and lost.

He may win his next appeal. If he does, he'll have no shortage of signing offers, if he's good enough.

[McIntosh]

Your erroneous use of legal terms such as 'defamed' and 'right to privacy' is not doing anything for your credibility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation Think hard about what you are saying - it is easy to identify you through your IP address. You are really out of your depth. I am being kind to you.

[JimBHibees]

Interesting, thanks.

Seems a bit outdated if we are talking about lack of capacity to consent as opposed to physically overpowering to force sex. Sex isn't just a thing that is done to a woman (or man), two people take part.

Agree however with rape there has to be penetration, other sexual offences will be covered elsewhere.

Here is a link to the Scottish sexual offences act.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2009/9/section/1

[Andy74]

There are two entirely separate issues here and they really shouldn't be confused.

One is whether there is a place in professional football for convicted rapists.

The second is whether Ched Evans' conviction was correct.

My view is that rapists should not be allowed back into football.

I have no idea about the second. I wasn't at the trial.

All I know is that he was convicted by a jury, he then appealed against the conviction and lost.

He may win his next appeal. If he does, he'll have no shortage of signing offers, if he's good enough.

Agree but its your second line that is really at issue - why should football be a special case where there is no room for persons convicted of certain crimes, when football is not on the list of jobs they can't do and is it right for mobs to essentailly pressure to an unreasonable extent, employers who have taken the decision to offer a role.

I've heard the points about role models and all that but I don't agree/ what are you oloking to achieve or safeguard here? Do you think that anyone is more likely to be raped in future if a convicted rapist is given a job in football? Will supporters think that because he plays football it would be a good thing to follow his behaviour?

Would you be happier if he was a plumber, getting direct access to women's homes without 10,000 people watching him?

The circumstances of this case make him even less a threat than than your general rapist who attacks women on the streets or is a seria offender. One other reason I don't get the hysteria over this one.

By the way, if he wins his appeal what changes for you? His behaviours and the circumstances have been the same whether it is technically a crime at this stage or not.

[Hibbyradge]

Agree but its your second line that is really at issue - why should football be a special case where there is no room for persons convicted of certain crimes, when football is not on the list of jobs they can't do and is it right for mobs to essentailly pressure to an unreasonable extent, employers who have taken the decision to offer a role.

I've heard the points about role models and all that but I don't agree/ what are you oloking to achieve or safeguard here? Do you think that anyone is more likely to be raped in future if a convicted rapist is given a job in football? Will supporters think that because he plays football it would be a good thing to follow his behaviour?

Would you be happier if he was a plumber, getting direct access to women's homes without 10,000 people watching him?

The circumstances of this case make him even less a threat than than your general rapist who attacks women on the streets or is a seria offender. One other reason I don't get the hysteria over this one.



In my view, there are crimes which life changing for the perpetrator. Rape is one of them. We're not going to agree on that.



By the way, if he wins his appeal what changes for you? His behaviours and the circumstances have been the same whether it is technically a crime at this stage or not.

He wouldn't be a convicted rapist. That's a big change.

I don't really know what happened that night. The jury believed he raped the girl and I have little choice but to accept their decision.

If he convinces people of his innocence, then I'll accept that decision too.

Otherwise, I'd be sitting in judgement on a person I haven't ever met and in circumstances of which I'm not aware.

[Allant1981]

Are you deliberately missing the point that she cant remember, if she cant remember it then consent cant be given?

No she claims not to remember anything that happened, she also did not claim to be raped, im not saying she wasnt raped though

[Hibrandenburg]

http://m.bbc.com/sport/football/30734906

Oldham reject Evans.

He'll be taking that as a yes then!

:duck:

[Andy74]

In my view, there are crimes which life changing for the perpetrator. Rape is one of them. We're not going to agree on that.



He wouldn't be a convicted rapist. That's a big change.

I don't really know what happened that night. The jury believed he raped the girl and I have little choice but to accept their decision.

If he convinces people of his innocence, then I'll accept that decision too.

Otherwise, I'd be sitting in judgement on a person I haven't ever met and in circumstances of which I'm not aware.

So who should set the limits on the life change and for who? I'm fairly sure this has already changed his lfe, quite right too I'm sure.

Should the public get the details of all the rape cases and the jobs they do and we can decide which ones we set up petitions for or pressure employers?

The guy happens to have a talent and training to play football - I think there needs to be very good reason to be going beyond the law to try and stop him from having gainful employment in the field he is trained in. The thing about role model and sending messages is a bit vague to me - should certain crimes have a cap on the money you can make afterwards? what bebefit is that to anyone? who is it protecting?

The messaging and role model thing is the same whether this is counted as a crime or not - the details remain the same. If it is a moral issue in not having him being cheered on and being a role model then the law doesn't matter and we should be judging all participants by their moral behavior across a range of areas. Agree? That's what you are saying, this is beyond the law and is a moral issue.

You seem to want to to stick to the law in their decision on the crime but not in what the law says he can do afterwards.

[jacomo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation Think hard about what you are saying - it is easy to identify you through your IP address. You are really out of your depth. I am being kind to you.

I'm sorry, where have I defamed you?

What do you mean by 'it is easy to identify you through your IP address'?

It sounds like some sort of veiled threat.

[cabbageandribs1875]

I'm sorry, where have I defamed you?

What do you mean by 'it is easy to identify you through your IP address'?

It sounds like some sort of veiled threat.


me thinks someone is a bit cuckoo :greengrin

[jacomo]

Agree but its your second line that is really at issue - why should football be a special case where there is no room for persons convicted of certain crimes, when football is not on the list of jobs they can't do and is it right for mobs to essentailly pressure to an unreasonable extent, employers who have taken the decision to offer a role.

I've heard the points about role models and all that but I don't agree/ what are you oloking to achieve or safeguard here? Do you think that anyone is more likely to be raped in future if a convicted rapist is given a job in football? Will supporters think that because he plays football it would be a good thing to follow his behaviour?

Would you be happier if he was a plumber, getting direct access to women's homes without 10,000 people watching him?

The circumstances of this case make him even less a threat than than your general rapist who attacks women on the streets or is a seria offender. One other reason I don't get the hysteria over this one.

By the way, if he wins his appeal what changes for you? His behaviours and the circumstances have been the same whether it is technically a crime at this stage or not.

Most rapes are committed by someone known to the victim. I am not sure what you mean by your comment about 'general rapists'??

In this case, the victim said she had no memory of meeting Ched Evans.

[Hibbyradge]

So who should set the limits on the life change and for who? I'm fairly sure this has already changed his lfe, quite right too I'm sure.

Should the public get the details of all the rape cases and the jobs they do and we can decide which ones we set up petitions for or pressure employers?

The guy happens to have a talent and training to play football - I think there needs to be very good reason to be going beyond the law to try and stop him from having gainful employment in the field he is trained in. The thing about role model and sending messages is a bit vague to me - should certain crimes have a cap on the money you can make afterwards? what bebefit is that to anyone? who is it protecting?

The messaging and role model thing is the same whether this is counted as a crime or not - the details remain the same. If it is a moral issue in not having him being cheered on and being a role model then the law doesn't matter and we should be judging all participants by their moral behavior across a range of areas. Agree? That's what you are saying, this is beyond the law and is a moral issue.

You seem to want to to stick to the law in their decision on the crime but not in what the law says he can do afterwards.

I believe there are certain types of crimes/criminals which football should shun. Rape is one of them.

If you believe that all criminals should be welcomed back, then fair enough. I disagree.

I wonder how many record labels will be queuing up to sign Ian Watkins when he gets out of jail. After all, he happens to have a talent and training to be a musician.

[jacomo]

me thinks someone is a bit cuckoo :greengrin

Careful, he'll accuse you of defamation. And possibly insinuate that he can 'find you'. :wink:

[cabbageandribs1875]

Careful, he'll accuse you of defamation. And possibly insinuate that he can 'find you'. :wink:


hope he doesn't get my ip addy, or there really will be defamation :greengrin

[McIntosh]

I'm sorry, where have I defamed you?

What do you mean by 'it is easy to identify you through your IP address'?

It sounds like some sort of veiled threat. This is in the hand of the administrators. However, there is a lesson here for you, me and everyone - when you ask a question and a person gives you respects and answers you in all honesty they are not necessarily a "bull****ter", "fantasists" or a "fraud" nor should their professional or personal integrity be defamed. Comment on the internet is not beyond the law it is still subject to it.

[Gus]

I believe there are certain types of crimes/criminals which football should shun. Rape is one of them.

If you believe that all criminals should be welcomed back, then fair enough. I disagree.

I wonder how many record labels will be queuing up to sign Ian Watkins when he gets out of jail. After all, he happens to have a talent and training to be a musician.

The sheer depravity of his crimes are totally different IMO & not comparable.

The boxing world allowed Mike Tyson back in & he is now on films etc....

[jacomo]

This is in the hand of the administrators. However, there is a lesson here for you, me and everyone - when you ask a question and a person gives you respects and answers you in all honesty they are not necessarily a "bull****ter", "fantasists" or a "fraud" nor should their professional or personal integrity be defamed. Comment on the internet is not beyond the law it is still subject to it.

Respect? Honesty? Not a lot of that from you on this thread.

I reckon a puppy knows more about the law than you.

[Future17]

Projection my friend but more fool you. Latest update - it is clear that many are of the opinion that the verdict was unsound. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30742947

I cannot believe a Premiership manager with the experience of Steve Bruce has waded in to this in this manner.

I'll-advised to say the least!

[Andy74]

This is in the hand of the administrators. However, there is a lesson here for you, me and everyone - when you ask a question and a person gives you respects and answers you in all honesty they are not necessarily a "bull****ter", "fantasists" or a "fraud" nor should their professional or personal integrity be defamed. Comment on the internet is not beyond the law it is still subject to it.

This has taken a wierd turn. I've has some disagreements with jacomoseven but I don't see anything that he has said to you that needs to be taken in this way.

You can't be identified as a professional here and so his view on how well qualified you are makes no odds.

[Hibbyradge]

The sheer depravity of his crimes are totally different IMO & not comparable.



And there we have it.

Rape's not all that serious.



The boxing world allowed Mike Tyson back in & he is now on films etc....

Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Gus]

[QUOTE=Hibbyradge;4269057]And there we have it.

Rape's not all that serious.

I never said that at all so wind your neck in. What I meant although maybe didnt articulate in the manner for the sensitive is that I personally believe what Ian Watkins did & by the length of his sentence suggests the courts agree was of such a depraved sustain acts compared to that of the Evans case. Rape is rape I understand people's opinions on this but this case seems to have such grey area's, I trust the system & at this stage he is a convicted rapist. There appears to be alot of keyboard lawyers on here.




So it's ok for Tyson to re-enter his trained profession but not Evans?

[easty]

So it's ok for Tyson to re-enter his trained profession but not Evans?

Who said that?

[SunshineOnLeith]

I read a good analysis piece the gist of which was that Evans and his supporters demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding or awareness of what rape is or, to invert that statement, what is rape.

She was drunk. She doesn't remember it. She was wearing a short skirt. All equally ridiculous arguments for refusing to accept a conviction which has stood scrutiny by 12 jurors and 3 appeal court judges. All of whom heard a lot more detail and evidence than anyone has read in the tabloid press.

[McIntosh]

Respect? Honesty? Not a lot of that from you on this thread.

I reckon a puppy knows more about the law than you.

That is your opinion which to be frank is not worth much. I throughout have tried to be civil but you have persisted in defaming me. This is something which I have raised with the administrators and which I hope they can resolve. If we can not resolve this amicably there are avenues open - you are not anonymous.

I am very cautious how I proceed, I do not know your personal circumstances or the pressures you are under. I do not wish for this reason to proceed further but I do want you to take the advice that the administrators gave yesterday.

[Gus]

Who said that?

HR said 2 wrong's don't make a right regarding Tyson.

[Andy74]

I read a good analysis piece the gist of which was that Evans and his supporters demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding or awareness of what rape is or, to invert that statement, what is rape.

She was drunk. She doesn't remember it. She was wearing a short skirt. All equally ridiculous arguments for refusing to accept a conviction which has stood scrutiny by 12 jurors and 3 appeal court judges. All of whom heard a lot more detail and evidence than anyone has read in the tabloid press.

I think the 'defence' is a bit more detailed than that.

In any case, where in the sentence does it say he shouldn't now play football - that's the issue at hand. He's had the punishment for being found guilty of the rape.

[easty]

I read a good analysis piece the gist of which was that Evans and his supporters demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding or awareness of what rape is or, to invert that statement, what is rape.

She was drunk. She doesn't remember it. She was wearing a short skirt. All equally ridiculous arguments for refusing to accept a conviction which has stood scrutiny by 12 jurors and 3 appeal court judges. All of whom heard a lot more detail and evidence than anyone has read in the tabloid press.

:agree:

[J-C]

That is your opinion which to be frank is not worth much. I throughout have tried to be civil but you have persisted in defaming me. This is something which I have raised with the administrators and which I hope they can resolve. If we can not resolve this amicably there are avenues open - you are not anonymous.

I am very cautious how I proceed, I do not know your personal circumstances or the pressures you are under. I do not wish for this reason to proceed further but I do want you to take the advice that the administrators gave yesterday.


You need to just chill and take a reality check, so you and another poster disagree and a few harsh things were said, grow a pair and just block him if he bothers you that much. My one bug bear on this site is the petty bickering which happens on a daily basis on various threads, people need to get a life.

[easty]

That is your opinion which to be frank is not worth much. I throughout have tried to be civil but you have persisted in defaming me. This is something which I have raised with the administrators and which I hope they can resolve. If we can not resolve this amicably there are avenues open - you are not anonymous.

I am very cautious how I proceed, I do not know your personal circumstances or the pressures you are under. I do not wish for this reason to proceed further but I do want you to take the advice that the administrators gave yesterday.

When were you defamed? you're actually becoming a bit of a pain in the arse on this thread.

I don't think you've been very civil either.

[J-C]

Admins, I think this thread needs to be moves to the Holy Ground as it's taken a wrong turn and has nothing to do with football anymore.

[easty]

Admins, I think this thread needs to be moves to the Holy Ground as it's taken a wrong turn and has nothing to do with football anymore.

:agree: Yep. Like Ched Evans this should be moved away from football.

[Hibbyradge]

[QUOTE=Hibbyradge;4269057]And there we have it.

Rape's not all that serious.

I never said that at all so wind your neck in. What I meant although maybe didnt articulate in the manner for the sensitive is that I personally believe what Ian Watkins did & by the length of his sentence suggests the courts agree was of such a depraved sustain acts compared to that of the Evans case. Rape is rape I understand people's opinions on this but this case seems to have such grey area's, I trust the system & at this stage he is a convicted rapist. There appears to be alot of keyboard lawyers on here.



Sorry, I wasn't having a go at you. I should have made my point a bit more sensitively.

My point is about rapists being employed in football, not Ched Evans. There should be no place in football for convicted rapists.

In Evans' case, as you point out, he is a convicted rapist. Wheterh he raped her once, 20 times or whether it was violent or drunken doesn't matter.

If I go out and have 2 pints and get stopped, I'll be convicted exactly the same as if I've had 6 pints. My license will be taken away and my insurance will rocket. I'll lose my job.






So it's ok for Tyson to re-enter his trained profession but not Evans?

Not for me it's not.

As I said, two wrongs don't make a right.

[Gus]

[QUOTE=Gus;4269066]

Sorry, I wasn't having a go at you. I should have made my point a bit more sensitively.

My point is about rapists being employed in football, not Ched Evans. There should be no place in football for convicted rapists.

In Evans' case, as you point out, he is a convicted rapist. Wheterh he raped her once, 20 times or whether it was violent or drunken doesn't matter.

If I go out and have 2 pints and get stopped, I'll be convicted exactly the same as if I've had 6 pints. My license will be taken away and my insurance will rocket. I'll lose my job.




Not for me it's not.

As I said, two wrongs don't make a right.

Nae worries, agree with the above mate & sorry for any confusion on both sides :wink:
:aok:

[TrinityHibs]

That is your opinion which to be frank is not worth much. I throughout have tried to be civil but you have persisted in defaming me. This is something which I have raised with the administrators and which I hope they can resolve. If we can not resolve this amicably there are avenues open - you are not anonymous.

I am very cautious how I proceed, I do not know your personal circumstances or the pressures you are under. I do not wish for this reason to proceed further but I do want you to take the advice that the administrators gave yesterday.

That actually made me laugh out loud. You start off with an insult and then say you have tried to be civil. Just brilliant. Also having read the advice it was aimed at more than one person. My non-legalistic interpretation was that you were one of the offending parties. I am not typing on my own machine at this time so there is little point in looking for my IP address if you feel that I have defamed you somehow or another.:aok:

[Just Alf]

That actually made me laugh out loud. You start off with an insult and then say you have tried to be civil. Just brilliant. Also having read the advice it was aimed at more than one person. My non-legalistic interpretation was that you were one of the offending parties. I am not typing on my own machine at this time so there is little point in looking for my IP address if you feel that I have defamed you somehow or another.:aok:

:top marks

[Gerard]

There are two entirely separate issues here and they really shouldn't be confused.

One is whether there is a place in professional football for convicted rapists.

The second is whether Ched Evans' conviction was correct.

My view is that rapists should not be allowed back into football.

I have no idea about the second. I wasn't at the trial.

All I know is that he was convicted by a jury, he then appealed against the conviction and lost.

He may win his next appeal. If he does, he'll have no shortage of signing offers, if he's good enough.

As I understand he was refused permission to appeal and that is what he is trying to get permission to do.

[easty]

As I understand he was refused permission to appeal and that is what he is trying to get permission to do.

He was refused permission to appeal by three judges who decided there was no reason to grant an appeal.

[Gerard]

He was refused permission to appeal by three judges who decided there was no reason to grant an appeal.

At the moment his lawyers are seeking permission to appeal via the CCRC , if allowed then he will be permitted to appeal the decision of his court case of the first instance.

[lapsedhibee]

If I go out and have 2 pints and get stopped, I'll be convicted exactly the same as if I've had 6 pints. My license will be taken away and my insurance will rocket. I'll lose my job.


But isn't there frequently a difference in the punishment for being a bit over the limit and a lot over the limit? In other words, the law does recognise degrees of over-the-limitness, doesn't it?

[Hibbyradge]

As I understand he was refused permission to appeal and that is what he is trying to get permission to do.

Yes, you're correct. :agree:

My post was badly worded.

[Hibbyradge]

But isn't there frequently a difference in the punishment for being a bit over the limit and a lot over the limit? In other words, the law does recognise degrees of over-the-limitness, doesn't it?

Probably.

Rape has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

It's up to the judge to decide the sentences, but if you **** one sheep...

Edit: Five years is the minimum sentence for the rape of someone 16 years old or over.

[Sergio sledge]

Can a woman rape a man ? :greengrin Hope no men are offended.

Nope, legally you cannot be charged with rape if you don't have a schlong. Female to male or female to female would be sexual assault and not rape.

[Hibbyradge]

It's not at all straightfoward. From the CPS website;

All the non-consensual offences involve a high level of culpability on the part of the offender, since that person will have acted either deliberately without the victim's consent or without giving due consideration to whether the victim was able to or did, in fact, consent.

The planning of an offence indicates a higher level of culpability than an opportunistic or impulsive offence.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/s1_rape/

[Pete]

Nope, legally you cannot be charged with rape if you don't have a schlong. Female to male or female to female would be sexual assault and not rape.

Even with a strap-on?

[Future17]

If I go out and have 2 pints and get stopped, I'll be convicted exactly the same as if I've had 6 pints. My license will be taken away and my insurance will rocket. I'll lose my job.

What job should you be permitted to do after you're released from prison (if that was part of the sentence) in your opinion?


It's not at all straightfoward. From the CPS website;

All the non-consensual offences involve a high level of culpability on the part of the offender, since that person will have acted either deliberately without the victim's consent or without giving due consideration to whether the victim was able to or did, in fact, consent.

The planning of an offence indicates a higher level of culpability than an opportunistic or impulsive offence.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/s1_rape/

I think that's the website for the law in England (and Wales). Not sure if the law definition is the same here or not as can't access the website.

[Hibbyradge]

What job should you be permitted to do after you're released from prison (if that was part of the sentence) in your opinion?

Professional footballer.

[Future17]

Professional footballer.

Predictable, but amusing nonetheless. :greengrin

In all seriousness though, surely we all subconsciously rank crimes by degrees of severity? If we are to proceed on the basis that someone in Evans' position should not be allowed to return to playing professional football as a convicted rapist, we would have to draw up some kind of matrix as to what jobs were appropriate depending on what offence a person has been convicted of.

[Hibbyradge]

Predictable, but amusing nonetheless. :greengrin

In all seriousness though, surely we all subconsciously rank crimes by degrees of severity? If we are to proceed on the basis that someone in Evans' position should not be allowed to return to playing professional football as a convicted rapist, we would have to draw up some kind of matrix as to what jobs were appropriate depending on what offence a person has been convicted of.

Maybe we should.

Many other professions have guidelines as to behaviours expected of their practitioners and clearly detail the consequences of being convicted of certain crimes. Why not football?

I made the point earlier in the thread about Ian Watkins. I doubt many people would argue that he should be given a new recording contract when he's finally released from prison and that would have nothing to to with his possible commercial success or failure.

Football as a profession should set standards and those standards should exclude rape.

[jacomo]

Maybe we should.

Many other professions have guidelines as to behaviours expected of their practitioners and clearly detail the consequences of being convicted of certain crimes. Why not football?

I made the point earlier in the thread about Ian Watkins. I doubt many people would argue that he should be given a new recording contract when he's finally released from prison and that would have nothing to to with his possible commercial success or failure.

Football as a profession should set standards and those standards should exclude rape.

:agree:

Other businesses, e.g. a restaurant, might be happy to employ an ex-prisoner in the kitchens but not in a customer-facing role. Footballers are ambassadors for their clubs. They represent the fans. They are high profile and enjoy great privileges. Why shouldn't we as a society expect higher standards from them?

A financial trader got sacked last week for tweeting a joke about running over a cyclist. Not a criminal offence, but his employers sacked him because his behaviour could potentially damage the reputation of the firm. No one is crying for him.

[Future17]

Maybe we should.

Many other professions have guidelines as to behaviours expected of their practitioners and clearly detail the consequences of being convicted of certain crimes. Why not football?

Why football? The only arguments I've heard to as to why Evans shouldn't be allowed to resume his career as a footballer relate to his salary and his potential status as a role model. I don't agree with either of those arguments (but respect that others do) but the same logic would have to apply to a vast range of jobs.

The issue of lack of rehabilitation has been mentioned as he has continued to maintain his innocence, but if the risk of re-offending is a serious consideration here then there are few jobs better suited than professional footballer.


I made the point earlier in the thread about Ian Watkins. I doubt many people would argue that he should be given a new recording contract when he's finally released from prison and that would have nothing to to with his possible commercial success or failure.

Once he has served his sentence and, providing he is not subject to any orders which would prevent it, he should be allowed to sign for any recording company that would have him.


Football as a profession should set standards and those standards should exclude rape.

And that brings us back to a slightly rephrased version of a question that those opposed to Evans resuming his career as a professional football player seem unable to answer:

Which profession shouldn't have standards such as these or, put another way, which profession should have standards which do not exclude rape? :confused:

[Future17]

:agree:

Other businesses, e.g. a restaurant, might be happy to employ an ex-prisoner in the kitchens but not in a customer-facing role. Footballers are ambassadors for their clubs. They represent the fans. They are high profile and enjoy great privileges. Why shouldn't we as a society expect higher standards from them?

A financial trader got sacked last week for tweeting a joke about running over a cyclist. Not a criminal offence, but his employers sacked him because his behaviour could potentially damage the reputation of the firm. No one is crying for him.

And his employers should be entitled to do so (provided they have legal grounds to do so, such as breach of contract). However, another firm of financial traders should be entitled to employ him if they wish to do so and, if that happened, I doubt anyone would object. He has been punished for his actions and has suffered as a result; he's now free to carry on and contribute to society.

[Hibbyradge]

Why football? The only arguments I've heard to as to why Evans shouldn't be allowed to resume his career as a footballer relate to his salary and his potential status as a role model. I don't agree with either of those arguments (but respect that others do) but the same logic would have to apply to a vast range of jobs.

The issue of lack of rehabilitation has been mentioned as he has continued to maintain his innocence, but if the risk of re-offending is a serious consideration here then there are few jobs better suited than professional footballer.



Once he has served his sentence and, providing he is not subject to any orders which would prevent it, he should be allowed to sign for any recording company that would have him.



And that brings us back to a slightly rephrased version of a question that those opposed to Evans resuming his career as a professional football player seem unable to answer:

Which profession shouldn't have standards such as these or, put another way, which profession should have standards which do not exclude rape? :confused:

We're all just going round in circles, aren't we. Rehearsing the same arguments and counter arguments. I doubt either of us are going to have an epiphany on the matter and change our minds. That's an observation, not a criticism!

Anyway, to continue doing exactly that :greengrin my view is that should rapists be welcomed back into football, it sends a very wrong signal out.

Rape's a bit naughty, but all that will happen is you might get put away for a couple of years, although 93% of accused rapists are not convicted, and you'll be back in the first team as if nothing happened in no time. The fans will still love you and they'll buy shirts with your name on it. If in any doubt, just give her one. Because she's worth it.

Of course it's not as blatant a message as that, but the message is there nonetheless.

The consequences of some crimes are more than just the prison sentence.

Regarding your last point, I can't think of any profession which shouldn't include rape as a sanction-able offence.

Humour me for a moment if you will. As unlikely as it may be, in theory, someone could be convicted of rape twice in the middle of their career. If they were welcomed back into the game, would you agree that it would send a very bad message out about football's, and society's, view of women?

[Andy74]

We're all just going round in circles, aren't we. Rehearsing the same arguments and counter arguments. I doubt either of us are going to have an epiphany on the matter and change our minds. That's an observation, not a criticism!

Anyway, to continue doing exactly that :greengrin my view is that should rapists be welcomed back into football, it sends a very wrong signal out.

Rape's a bit naughty, but all that will happen is you might get put away for a couple of years, although 93% of accused rapists are not convicted, and you'll be back in the first team as if nothing happened in no time. The fans will still love you and they'll buy shirts with your name on it. If in any doubt, just give her one. Because she's worth it.

Of course it's not as blatant a message as that, but the message is there nonetheless.

The consequences of some crimes are more than just the prison sentence.

Regarding your last point, I can't think of any profession which shouldn't include rape as a sanction-able offence.

Humour me for a moment if you will. As unlikely as it may be, in theory, someone could be convicted of rape twice in the middle of their career. If they were welcomed back into the game, would you agree that it would send a very bad message out about football's, and society's, view of women?

And what is the banks' view on women, or the post office's, or Sainsbury's?

I think the whole messaging and football having some collective conscience is over thinking it. Its a job for those who work in it and a sport for those who watch it.

[Allant1981]

That is your opinion which to be frank is not worth much. I throughout have tried to be civil but you have persisted in defaming me. This is something which I have raised with the administrators and which I hope they can resolve. If we can not resolve this amicably there are avenues open - you are not anonymous.

I am very cautious how I proceed, I do not know your personal circumstances or the pressures you are under. I do not wish for this reason to proceed further but I do want you to take the advice that the administrators gave yesterday.

You really are starting to sound weirder and weirder by the minute, go make a coffee and come back when you have chilled, you may well have more knowledge about the case than the general public but that is something you should keep to yourself and not brag about

[LaMotta]

I read a good analysis piece the gist of which was that Evans and his supporters demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding or awareness of what rape is or, to invert that statement, what is rape.

She was drunk. She doesn't remember it. She was wearing a short skirt. All equally ridiculous arguments for refusing to accept a conviction which has stood scrutiny by 12 jurors and 3 appeal court judges. All of whom heard a lot more detail and evidence than anyone has read in the tabloid press.

I don't think that is the case at all. There is a recognition amongst people that there remains a possibility he could be innocent because the verdict on what went on in that room was delivered through guesswork.

[MSK]

I posted earlier in this thread requesting folk to cut out the personal digs & petty point scoring ..that has obviously been ignored ..it seems to me that the thread topic is no longer the issue (for some) & they would prefer to take issue with a fellow poster & vice versa.

Thread now closed.